PozTalkAuthor

They have "invented" DEI with best intentions. But many (big or small) companies have faced it wrong, and the consequences have been even white folks saying "am I too white for the job", with consequences everyone knows. Btw if I have to find something positive in Trump? He's NOT hypocrite. He says his interests are money and territories, he doesn't care about the rest and doesn't hide it. Not to mention us tech folks who are working harder (me included) to defend tech sovereignty in the EU. Unreachable currently, but from something we have to start!

I take the ball in hand again for that matter of "progressive policies" ToBeTrained mentioned: I knew there was a word about the phenomenon you referred to, but I forgot it so I didn't call things by their name. When at work, in the enterteinment industry etc, the "diversity inclusion" policies are exaggerated, based on percentages. When you hire someone because of their underrepresented condition rather for a real professional value. Worse, an underrepresented person is hired but then has MARGINAL roles, is irrelevant for decision power. Etc. Well, the word is TOKENISM. This phenomenon causes frustration in people, and it ends up in hate speech in best cases. In the worst? They vote for anti-DEI politicians, they want to eliminate inclusion totally because they think inclusion is a problem, not the superficial dealing with the topic. Not calling things by their name, they fall into harmful traps. They say "woke", they say "DEI" is the problem. While the problem is performative activism, washing and tokenism.

Yes, I asked "why they voted this way?" because there are even women guiding far-right parties, even LGBT (I specifically talk about German Alice Weidel). I could say that Trump has made promises in decreasing taxes, trying to have big companies work in America rather than in China or abroad, but in the end, he's making everything more difficult in economy - not to talk about all the ICE stuff, promises to eliminate crime, by placing more people (officially with no regards) who commit crimes.

I've always wondered why some LGBT, black, people with disability, etc. choose to vote for far-right movements but maybe it's the wrong question: what do progressives WRONG, that's more complex to answer IMHO, our positions are fragile and we must try to gain people's trust again. Starting from self-criticism, by beginning to look around our "comfort zone". I don't mention Trump specifically because it's all over the world. Italy has Salvini and Vannacci, two pro-Trump/putin folks. Meloni, the prime-minister, is a woman, and is right-wing oriented; less extreme than the other two, but there she is. In France, Marine Le Pen is a woman, and is far-right. Last but not least, Alice Weidel from Germany is lesbian, married to a non-white woman, adopted 2 or 3 kids. And she's one leader of AFD, Alternative Für Deutschland far-right party (Elon Musk has attempted and attempts to pressure Europe to follow far-right). In UK there's Nigel Farage, in Hungary we know Orbân, south America has its far-right movements too. Not to talk about Santiago Abascal (Vox party) in Spain. Well, there are many, many women and LGBT folks voting for these. From my progressive point of view though, I think it's too easy, dramatically too easy, to pose this question: "why do they vote this way?" I think the question must be reversed: what did WE do wrong? If we want people's trust again, we should think back. Talking about inclusion in many perspectives, not thinking we're the only ones to have the correct way of thinking. One guy here has already brought the "diversity policies" in companies matter. I am not against the philosophy originating DEI itself, because most people self-claimed "pro-merit" are the ones who feel as their own human right, to discriminate someone for sex orientation, skin color, disability, HIV status, etc. The American army itself is pro-merit, against DEI, and if you are trans or HIV positive you have no longer chances. A white, hetero and neg, has more chances than another, for their anti-DEI policy. So? If extreme DEI is wrong, the other one is worse! The conflict exists, needless to pretend nothing; if I have to hire a programmer and have two candidates, but one free place only. And I have one white-hetero-cis without disabilities, and I have a [random underrepresented group] person. With SAME professional skills. I would make a mistake hiring the one """normal""" _because he's """normal""" and the same I'd be wrong to hire the other one _because_ they're [part of random underrepresented group]. Laws about diversity should consider this: "test abilities of both, put both on an apprentice period, then choose according to real merit". On the paper, both can write anything inside a resume or linkedin profile. But they can't lie if they face work head-on. The wrong way is forcing to hire percentages of underrepresented. If you have to hire 50 percent latinos and a Caucasian with suitable experience comes to your place, sending him away because then you overcome the percentage of caucasians, isn't appropriate. Same for the opposite. If you have already overcome the percentage of [underrepresented] and you have another one coming, while no """normalized""" ones with same skills, you should hire that one. I even know about companies who prefer paying penalties rather than hiring people with disability. Because there is no EDUCATION about it, percentages without awareness are just slogans. I also have to tell this. In 2022 I came out at work as HIV positive. No issue after that, but it's another story. But at yearly webinar/course on diversity and inclusion, I took the mic, brutally: you discuss about feeling comfortable in talking about religion, sexuality, disability, skin color. But which DEI program counts HIV? Who would feel comfortable to talk about health this way? Who is on ease when sharing they are under chemoterapy regime for cancer? Inclusion is complex, is not just made of charts and propaganda. Facts, folks. Facts. I almost covered half the webinar as the teacher had NOTHING MORE to say. I was hired for my skills in computer and security, not for my status and sex orientation; I kept it private for years. Gradually building trust, and coming out when I felt on ease to, not being obliged to. DEI should make you feel comfortable in being yourself REGARDLESS of who you are, not about hiring someone just for "diversity" criteria. Then, about progressive extremism vs. far-right, I'd suggest a book to read, for reflection: it's by Caroline Fourest, offended generation. I think it's in English as well. I hope, at least! And about far-right / politics, I think safety is the key they're pushing, and we must be aware it's a problem. Computer attacks, on-street attacks, my mother has been robbed a couple weeks ago; there are too many folks who do not follow the simple rules (even pissing on monuments), then far-right propaganda pushes on immigrants only, while this behaviour comes from anywhere. But with those problems at least perceived as urgent, far-right has found the simplest way to persuade people of being able to solve it. And they fell into the trap.

Very scared to bottom at first, so I topped him. Bottomed after a month or so. But we had fun exploring our bodies in many ways. Tongue, feet, fingers, etc. He was experienced. And with my current guy I've been his very first male partner after his background with female (anal and genital). My aim was to make him understand that an ass is an ass, man or woman. So I began with mutual nipple play, then oral, and then jumped on him, riding him. He bottomed after a short while - we trusted each other for a very long time. And now? His second, is the one who's been my first. Like getting mutual first experiences back. All 3 of us are completely versatile now.